Department of Corrections classification system

C 5700.8 C614s 1995 c.1
1~111~lllill~i~IIII~III!III!III!III~11 A 1 5 3 0 7 6 9 4 4 7 0
Department of Corrections
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
18000
17000
16000
15000 !14000
13000
12000
11000
:i 190000000
Z 8000
I!s 7000
6000
5000
4000J 1950:12.373 ~
32000000J~.~~~-~~::::::::::::~;:~~~~~~;-~~~;-~~~~-;~~
50
1000000
900000
~ 800000 j 700000
~ 600000
1500000
I!s 400000 •• 300000
200000
100000~1--------------------------------.----------------------------------
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92
GROWTH OF NAnONAL m:> STATEWIDE It\t.4ATE POPlA.A TIONS
00 OF YEAR COUNTSFROM1950 TIflOUGi 1993
OKLAHOMA
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92
lJ-.lITED STATES
1950 :I 166.123
2-13-95 R&E
II Table of Contents II
Summary 1
The Classification System Issue 2
Does the Oklahoma Department of Corrections place inmates
with violent convictions at low security? If so, why? 2
How do other states compare? 5
Should we change this system? How do we go about
changing these practices? 5
Can we move community and minimum security violent
offenders to medium and maximum security? 6
Can we move medium security nonviolent offenders
to nn.mm. um secunt.y. ? . . 7
What if we scrap the old system and adopt a system in use by
another jurisdiction? What other instruments can we adopt
quickly, Bureau of Prisons, Pennsylvania? 8
Tables and Charts
Authorized Bedspace By Security Level 3
Average Sentence Length By Security 3
Bedspace Distribution Comparison 4
Selected Distribution of Bedspace by Security Level 5
Inmate Characteristics By Security (%) 6
Inmate Characteristics By Security (Number) 7
Reason for Inmate Security Level 8
Comparison of Objective Classification Systems 9
Comparison of Reclassification Factors 10
Comparison of Objective Classification Systems 10
Re-Distribution of Oklahoma Bedspace to Meet Bureau of Police
Classification System 11
Comparison ofInmate Classification (Oklahoma to Bureau of Police) 11
Re-Distribution of Oklahoma Bedspace to Meet Pennsylvania
Classification System 12
Comparison ofInmate Classification (Oklahoma to Pennsylvania) 12
Comparison of Inmate Classification to the Federal Bureau of Prisons 14
Comparison of Inmate Classification to the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections 15
Recommendations 16
Appendices 17
SUMMARY
There is growing concern about the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' classification system and
the placement of violent offenders in low security. The objective inmate classification system,
developed in 1982, has been revised to reflect the additional bedspace that the legislature has
authorized. More and more bedspace has been added at the lowest levels of security. As a result,
Oklahoma has a significantly higher proportion of low security bedspace than the national or
regional norm. Bedspace is in use that should not be according to the Board of Corrections capacity
survey completed in January 1995. To be in compliance with the law, over 2,700 beds would have
to be taken out of use immediately.
Since 1984, 3,999 beds were added in low security. During this time period outcount categories
such as pre-parole conditional supervision and electronic monitoring grew by 2,300 inmates. Sixty-eight
percent of new inmate capacity was added to low security, while only thirty-two percent of the
new bedspace was at higher security. The expansion in maximum security space was obtained by
double celling Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections assigns inmates to security levels based on the
classification system which is based on the relative risk that the inmate poses. This classification
system takes into account sentence length, crime type, and other factors to place inmates
appropriately. Approximately 29 percent of the inmates at community security and 40 percent of
the inmates at minimum security have controlling cases for violent crimes. Forty-eight of fifty states
assign inmates with violent convictions to low security.
Compared to other states, Oklahoma is upside down in the ratio of inmates from high to low
security. Oklahoma ratio of high to low security is 45 percent to 55 percent, the regional average is
70 percent to 30 percent, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is 68.4 percent to 31.6 percent, and the
national average is 63 percent to 37 percent.
If Oklahoma was to reclassify inmates with violent convictions from low to high security with the
current classification system, 3,571 inmates would have to be moved to high security.
Using an existing classification instrument from another jurisdiction would reflect the classification
methodology of that jurisdiction. A sample of Oklahoma inmates was reclassified using the Federal
Bureau of Prisons instrument and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections classification
instrument. Adoption of either system would require Oklahoma to add high security bedspace to
fit the new classification system, ranging from an addition of 1,274 high security beds to fit
Pennsylvania's to an addition of 4,482 maximum security beds to fit the Bureau of Prisons's
classification system.
1
THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ISSPE
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections' inmate classification system was developed as an
objective classification system in 1982. Over the years, the system has been revised to reflect the
additional bedspace that the legislature has authorized. More and more bedspace has been added at
the lowest levels of security. As a result, Oklahoma has a significantly higher proportion of low
security bedspace than the national or regional norm. Oklahoma has added space to keep pace with
the continuously rising demand for incarceration. Bedspace is in use that should not be according
to the Board of Corrections' capacity survey which was based on an analysis of Oklahoma, federal,
and national standards. There is concern about the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
classification system's placement of violent offenders in low security.
1. Does the Oklahoma Department of Corrections place inmates with violent convictions
at low security? If so, why?
There are 3,571 offenders with violent convictions in minimum and community security.
An objective classification risk assessment instrument is used to calculate risk factors for this
placement. If an inmate scores at the lower end of the risk assessment, placement in
minimum or community security is directed. Exclusionary criteria limit the longer sentence
lengths and prohibit certain crimes from placement in the lowest security levels. Override
factors keep targeted offense groups out of community security such as sex offenders or
inmates with offenses against children. A copy of the risk assessment instrument and a
detailed discussion of the classification system is included in the appendix. Approximately
29 percent of the community security level inmates have a current case for a violent offense
and about 40 percent of minimum security offenders.
Inmates in high security generally have longer sentence lengths than those in lower security.
Higher security inmates have sentences that average around 30 years or more in length, while
lower security inmates typically have 12 years or less to serve. The majority of inmates in
higher security have violent controlling cases and a violent conviction within the past ten
years. Many have prior incarcerations and escape records. Inmates at lower security levels
are less likely to have violent convictions either as controlling cases or prior cases. These
inmates are less likely to have escape records but may be slightly more likely to have prior
incarcerations. This latter issue may be a factor of inmates more experienced in serving time
behaving better, resulting in reclassification to lower security more quickly.
1500 iA
2
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Authorized Bedspace By Security Level
Inmate Population - January, 1995
13312
C/) _
-0
Q) co
-0 1"!'
Q) :Jl
N ~ .§ l
..•r...:.
::::I «
Maximum Medium Minimum
Security Level
PPCS/SSP/EM All
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Average Sentence Length By Security
3
•(..f..) 4
co
(j) >-
Q)
() 3
C
(j) .•....c
(j)
(f)
(j)
•cO..o.J.
Q) >
«1
------------------------
Average Sentence Years
-----------------------------_ .._---
Maximum Medium Minimum Com/Res ppeS/SSP/EM All
Security Level
Oklahoma has used this classification system since 1982. Over the years, the procedures
have been revised to reflect the addition of new information or new bedspace. Basically, the
classification system assigns inmates based on the bedspace resources available. There are
four security levels of incarceration: maximum security, medium, minimum, and community.
The majority of Oklahoma's bedspace additions funded by the legislature have been in low
security--minimum and community security.
Since 1984, 3,999 beds were added in low security, 1,850 beds were added in higher security
and the outcount categories such as pre-parole conditional supervision and electronic
monitoring grew by 2,300 inmates. Sixty-eight percent of the new bedspace was added to
low security, while only thirty-two percent of the new bedspace was at higher security.
Maximum 819 1949 1130 3~~
Medium 3674 4400 726
Minimum 2196 4958 2762 bJ%
Community 1088 2325 1237
Totals 7777 13632 5855
Maximum 1949 2041 92
Medium 4393 3842 -551
Minimum 4911 3385 -1526
Community 2379 1712 -667
Totals 13632 10980 -2652
As low security space was added disproportionately to high security beds, the department
continued to adjust the classification system to help keep the low security beds full. While
the type of offender the agency classifies to minimum security appear to be poor risks,
they are relatively better risks than those who remain in medium.
It should be noted, that even though Oklahoma has added greatly to low security bedspace,
there has been a decline in the escape rate.
4
Oklahoma has added bedspace primarily by acquiring existing structures or double ceIling
housing areas. A prison bedspace capacity study that surveyed Oklahoma's laws, federal
standards, and legal issues in regard to prison bedspace utilization was presented to the
Board of Corrections in January 1995. This analysis, coordinated by an outside
consultant, revealed that Oklahoma is not in compliance with its own laws in regard to
occupancy limits in correctional facilities. To be in compliance with Oklahoma laws, the
Life Safety Code, OSHA guidelines, and other mandates, Oklahoma would need to reduce
the occupancy of correctional facilities by more than 2,700 inmates.
2. How do other states compare?
Many other states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons are in significantly better positions
than Oklahoma when it comes to addressing the placement of higher security inmates.
Oklahoma compares unfavorably to other states and to the national average when the
distribution of bedspace by security level is analyzed.
SELECTED DISTRIBUTION OF BEDSPACE BY SECURITY LEVEL
High Security Beds Low Security Beds
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Colorado
New Mexico
Texas
Regional Average
Federal Bureau of Prisons
National Average
45%
65%
69%
63%
87%
70%
68.4%
63%
55%
35%
31%
37%
13%
30%
31.6%
37%
A 50 state survey of classificationpractices was conducted by the Research and Evaluation
unit of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Of the 50 states and the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, all but two states (Arkansas and New Hampshire) do classify offenders with
violent convictions to low security.
3. Should we change this system? How do we go about changing these practices?
Yes, Oklahoma's classification instrument needs to be changed. It has not been validated
since inception in 1982. It is missing key items that might increase the accuracy of risk
assessment. For example, these items included in many classification models are not
included in Oklahoma's: age, educational level, marital status, employment status at arrest,
alcohol/drug abuse indicators, custody level at release from previous incarceration, inmate
needs assessment. In addition, Oklahoma's classification system is only partially
automated. To assess the entire offender population, a computer survey of offender
classification characteristics must be confirmed by manual reviews by field units.
5
Change in the classification system is accomplished by assessing the effect of manipulating
classification factors, such as of violent/nonviolent offenses, time left to serve, age, etc.,
and calculating the resulting impact on bedspace. Adopting a more conservative approach
to assigning inmates to security levels will necessitate additional higher security bedspace
to match the number of newly classified higher security inmates.
The classification system must make our inmate population fit into our existing
resources, i.e. bedspace. Oklahoma has applied for a National Institute of Corrections
grant to retain a consultant to help change the classification system. The grant is expected
to be awarded to Oklahoma within a few weeks. A national expert on classification
systems has already started working with us on this project. An advisory committee has
been formed and will meet February 27, 1995.
4. Can we move community and minimum security violent offenders to medium and
maximum security?
A total of 866 Oklahoma inmates at community security have controlling, concurrent, or
consecutive convictions for violent offenses; 1,167 inmates have violent convictions
within ten years. Nineteen hundred sixty-two (1,962) inmates at minimum security have
controlling, concurrent, or consecutive convictions for violent offenses; 2,404 have violent
convictions within ten years. The Department of Corrections would have to place 3,571
inmates from lower security into higher security to place all the inmates with violent
convictions within the last ten years in higher security.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Inmate Characteristics By Security
l00~--------------------------------------, Percent of Inmates By Security Level With The Characteristics Below
9 --.-------------------------
-o
(f) a
(l) 10
Ec
--------------------------------------------
73
+-'
C
(l) o'- (l) a.
MB.lIimum Medium Minimum Com/Res
Security Level
_ Viol Offense _ Viol 10 Yrs _ Prior Inc II!! Escape
6
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Inmate Characteristics By Security
Number of Inmates By Security Level With The Characteristics Below __ ---_.._------_.---------------------------------------
500
en
Q)
rtl
Ec
'to-
0•
....
Q) .0
E:::l
Z
------------------_._------------------------------------ ----
-----------331------------
________ . ?_4g~ . . . ._______________________________ _ _
2112
500 ----
Maximum Medium
Security Level
_ Viol Offense _ Viol 10 Yrs _ Prior Inc IE Escape
5. Can we move medium security nonviolentoffenders to minimum security?
A survey was taken on February 3, 1995, of all inmates that are currently housed at
medium and maximum security institutions. Facilities were asked to explain why inmates
with nonviolent current controlling cases were housed in medium and maximum security
facilities. A total 1,568 inmates were identified. The following factors were given for
medium security placement: sentence length, escape records, serious disciplinary record,
detainers, pending charges, violent consecutive cases, and various combinations of these
factors. There are also inmates housed in the higher levels that pose serious security
concerns for law enforcement or victim groups, are unable to live with other inmates, and
those that prey on other inmates if not segregated. Some inmates with nonviolent
convictions are even subject to life sentences, e.g., burglary, drug distribution, and others.
7
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Reason For Inmate Security Level
Inmates With Non-Violent Sentence At Maximum Or Medium Security
Unable to Determine
Other
Combined Esca e, Misconduct, Sent
Detainer or Charges Pending
Long Sentence Time to Serve
39.3%
Assessment of 1,568 Male Inmates
At Seven Max or Med Facilities
As of February 3, 1995
After review of the 1,568 inmates at medium and maximum security, few were eligible
for review for placement at lower security to replace the 3,571 low security inmates with
violent convictions within the past ten years. We are moving these inmates to minimum
security as they become eligible. This figure does not include the 2,700 beds that will be
lost if the department has to remove inmates from facilities that exceed occupancy
standards. A total of 6,271 beds would be needed to completely address placement of
inmates in low security with violent convictions in higher security beds and be in legal
compliance with institutional occupancy guidelines.
6. What if we scrap the old system and adopt a system in use by another jurisdiction?
What other instruments can we adopt quickly, Bureau of Prisons, Pennsylvania?
Installation of a new classification system is a time consuming process, one which involves
a group of corrections professionals meeting over an extended period of time examining
classification factors, bedspace, and system resources. Could we adopt an instrument
already in use in another state?
Oklahoma Department of Corrections obtained documentation on 17 classification
instruments in the fall of 1994. Dr. James Austin of the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, a nationally known expert on classification procedures, was consulted. Dr.
Austin suggested that we conduct a study of the impact of two of these instruments on
Oklahoma inmates. The classification instruments chosen were from the Federal Bureau
of Prisons and from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
8
Our research unit selected a stratified, random sample of 500 inmates representing all
security levels in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. On February 6 through 7, the
files on these inmates were reviewed by 30 + Department of Corrections staff trained in
the use of the Bureau of Prisons and Pennsylvania classification instruments. There are
some differences between the three systems--Oklahoma, Bureau of Prisons, and
Pennsylvania. Oklahoma's system is the simplest to use and has the fewest classification
factors. Pennsylvania, which has truth-in-sentencing, has a classification system based
heavily on offense severity and the inmates behavior while in prison. The Bureau of
Prisons has the most complicated classification system, taking into account the most
variables.
Detainers
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Number of Priors
Time to Serve Time to Serve
Time Served
Escapes
Prior Inst. Adjustment
Number of Incidents
Violence History
Precommitment Status
Drug/Alcohol History
Mental/Psych. Status
Responsibility
Family/Community Ties
Sentence Length
Escapes
Prior Inst. Adjustment
Additional Factors
Escapes
Prior Inst. Adjustment
Stability Factors:
Age/Marital/Employment
9
Time Served
Escapes
Disciplinary Severity
Number of Incidents
Institutional Adjustment
Additional Factors
Offense Severity
Prior Offenses
Escapes
Disciplinary Severity
Number of Incidents
Violence History
Age
Institutional Adjustment
Program Participation
Work Performance
Housing Performance
Precommitment Status
Drug/Alcohol History
MentallPsychological Status
Responsibility
Family/Community Ties
Detainers
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Time to Serve
Time Served
Escapes
Disciplinary Severity
Number of Incidents
Violence History
Age
Educational Level
Marital Status
Employment Status at Arrest
Drug Abuse
Custody Level at Release on Previous Incarceration
Reclassification
Reflect Actual Time to Serve or Parole Eligibility
Include Inmate Needs Assessment
Lack of Automation for the Entire System
10
The study found that using the Bureau of Prisons classification system to classify
Oklahoma Department of Corrections inmates would result in reclassifying the majority
of inmates in medium, minimum, and community security to higher levels of security. If
you take this study and compare it to Department of Corrections' current capacity,
excluding the reception center, a major expansion of maximum security bedspace would
be needed to accommodate use of the BOP classification instrument. Oklahoma's
maximum security bedspace would have to expand from 1,629 beds to over 6,111 beds.
Oklahoma's bedspace distribution would have to change from 45 percent high security and
55 percent low security to 72 percent high security and 28 percent low security using the
Bureau of Prisons system.
Existing
Bedspace
1629 4400 4958 2325
Redistributed
Bedspace
6111 3474 1719 2008
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
Oklahoma Prison Bedspace Redistributed According To Federal BOP Criteria
Maximum
Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates 1331213312
(Excludes 320 Beds at Reception Center)
Secure Beds
Okla = 6,029 (45%)
BOP = 9,585 (72%)
Non-Secure Beds
Okla = 7,283 (55%)
BOP = 3,727 (28%)
Medium Min/Low Comm/Min ppeS/SSP/EM
Oklahoma/BOP Security Level
All
1_ Oklahoma _ Federal/BOP I
11
Pennsylvania's classification system would cause some realignment of Oklahoma resources
if implemented. The study found that Pennsylvania's system would rearrange Oklahoma's
inmate population rather than cause a major shift to maximum security. Adjustments
would be needed in all levels of security. A total of 1,274 more beds would be needed in
maximum and medium security, 862 more beds would be needed in minimum security,
and there would be a decrease of 2,136 beds in community security. Oklahoma's bedspace
distribution would have to change from 45 percent high security and 55 percent low
security to 55 percent high security and 45 percent low security using the Pennsylvania
system.
Existing
Bedspace
1629 4400 4958 2325
Re-distributed
Bedspace
2039 5264 5820 169
co: +:: ::J .D
...•:.::.:. ., en "0 o ~
~l catl.
en
"'0
Q) co
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
Oklahoma Prison 8edspace Redistributed According To Pennsylvania Criteria
Results based on a random sample 01Oklahoma Inmates 1331213312
(Excludes 320 Beds at Reception Center)
Secure Beds
Okla = 6,029 (45%)
Penn = 7,303 (55%)
Non-Secure Beds
Okla = 7,283 (55%)
Penn = 6,009 (45%)
5820
189
Max/Close Medium Minimum Comm/Res PPCS/SSP/EM All
Oklahoma/Pennsylvania Security Level
1_ Oklahoma _ Pennsylvania I
12
The Pennsylvania system is the more practical of the two classification systems to adopt
because there is less adjustment in current resources so less cost is involved. It is
important to note that Pennsylvania has a uniform sentencing code, so there is less
variation in sentence length than in Oklahoma. Sentence length would probably have to
continue to be a classificationfactor until Oklahomaadopts uniform sentencing guidelines.
13
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To the Federal Bureau of Prisons
o,o
CD
Cii a:;
""0
OJ
LL o•...
OJ c:
'6ooo«
Results based 92 on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates
•... c:
Q)
~
oO,J
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Result of Classification According to Federal BOP Criteria) 1_ Higher _ Same _ Lower ~
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To the Federal Bureau of Prisons
o, 10 92
0
CD
~
OJ
""0
OJ
LL
0 •...
OJ c:
'E0
oo«C
2
OJ ~
aO,J
Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates
-------------67----------------
64
Maximum
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Federal Bureau of Prisons Classification Legend Below)
I_High III Minimum _ Medium _ Low I
14
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
~ 10~------------------~----------------------~9 o Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates 4~----------~
.~ C
CO >>
-
(/)
C
C
cQ,)
.8
01 c :ao
(J ;).
.•...
C
Q)
(~J cQ..).
gr>+----
310+-----
2'0-1-----
o
Maximum Medium
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Result of Classification According to Pennsylvania Criteria) 1_ Higher - Same - Lower I
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections oo
o 1ocry--------------------------------------------------------~
co 'c
~>-
(/)
CC
Q)
0-
.8
01
C 'Eo(J o«
Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates
_._-------._--_ ._. ._-_ .._. ._----------------------------.....j
.•....
C
Q) o~
cQ..).
8 - -- - ..------- ..- ..-.- ..- ..- --.- -----------.--- -- -------J
7 - --- ..--- ..- -.-._-.- -- ..--.--.- ------ ..-.-- -- ..--.--
6 ..-.-.-.- ..-.--- -.--------.-.--- ..--.-- ..----- _ _._SR. . -.-.- .
. ~a ._ .._.._49 ._.
42
Maximum Medium Minimum Com miRes PPCS/SSP/EM
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Pennsylvania DOC Classification Legend Below) 1_ Close _ Minimum EEl Community _ Medium I
15
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Overhaul the current classification system. The process to accomplish this has already
begun. A National Institute of Corrections grant is likely and a national expert is assisting
in this process. If the evaluation process is allowed to continue, a better quality product
will be developed.
B. Add medium beds through expansion of county jail contracts. A supplemental
appropriation has been requested to allow Department of Corrections to meet bedspace
needs for this fiscal year. While this request does not allow a comprehensive
reclassification effort to take place, it does fund contracting for county jail beds. County
jails have contracted with Department of Corrections to house minimum and medium
security inmates. The contracted medium beds do contribute to meeting these
classification challenges.
C. Fully fund Department of Corrections' FY 96 appropriation request. Additional
medium security beds have been requested to meet growth needs for the coming year.
Alternatives have also been proposed to further expand medium security options such as
increasing the security level at several minimum security facilities. With these and other
new medium options, the classification system could be adjusted to realign the inmate
population.
D. Target specific offense categories and/or programs for classification factor changes.
Go through all high proftle programs that may elicit community concern. Meet with citizen
advisory boards, law enforcement representatives, victim liaisons, and impacted local
agencies to adjust inmate eligibility criteria for community/minimum security (electronic
monitoring program, half-way house, community work center, community corrections
center, prisoner public works program, etc.).
E. Target offense categories for removal from low security and placement at higher
security. A survey of offense categories at all levels of security will be conducted. The
medium security inmate population will be reviewed. Any medium security inmate
serving time for a nonviolent conviction and no history of violence will be considered for
transfer to lower security. As space becomes available at higher security, targeted lower
security inmates will be moved up in security level.
16
II Appendices II
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Inmate Movement through the System
In county jail:
1. An inmate is sentenced to incarceration.
2. The sheriff calls the inmate's name in to LARC Population Office.
3. LARC Population places the inmate's name on a waiting list
4. The sheriff transports the inmate to LARC on the scheduled move day.
Oklahoma and Tulsa counties deliver to LARC weekly; all other counties are
scheduled. If a county is over capacity, it can give 72 hours notification to LARC
and expedite delivery to relieve jail overcrowding. The average number of days
an inmate is held by the county prior to delivery to LARC is 28--high average is
71 days for Kay County, Tulsa County average is 17 days. A list of county jails
and the number of inmates waiting for delivery to Department of Corrections is
attached. A total of 54 counties are holding 377 males and 49 females for
Department of Corrections.
At Lexington Assessment and Reception Center:
5. The inmate is received at LARC.
6. The inmate is assessed for classification assignment and medical status.
These factors are looked at for initial classification assessment: offense severity,
sentence length, conduct, prior incarcerations, escapes, program needs (TADD,
RID, FORT).
7. Psychological and educational tests are administered to the inmate.
8. Inmate files are initiated/re-opened; a number is given to the inmate.
9. The inmate is classified to a facility/program.
10. LARC Central Transportation Unit (CTU) transports the inmate to the facility.
At new facility:
11. The inmate is oriented to the new facility.
12. The inmate receives an internal custody designation, program, and work assignments.
13. An inmate becomes eligible for a new program.
These factors are looked at for reclassification assessment: time served, conduct,
incarceration adjustment, escapes.
14. A case manager submits a transfer request through the facility.
15. Upon approval at the facility, the request goes to LARC Population.
16. Upon approval at LARC Population, the inmate's name goes on a waiting list.
17. As space becomes available, Population authorizes the movement.
18. The inmate is transferred to the new program/facility by CTU.
Placement in outside agencies and contractors, such as with the Department of Mental
Health and halfway houses, requires permission from the contractor. Pre-parole
conditional supervision placement requires approval of the Pardon and Parole Board.
Prior to placement on pre-parole conditional supervision and on electronic monitoring
program, notification is made to law enforcement and victim liaisons for protest purposes
and home/telephone offers are verified.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Classification means "to put into meaningful categories." Classification is a term used in
corrections to describe the assignment of an offender to a security status, custody status, and
programmatic assignment. Classification denotes the action of assignment and can be applied
to describe the activity or staff involved, such as the classification committee. The Oklahoma
Department of Corrections classification practices have varied over the years. Classification
has progressed from a subjective review of offenders by correctional staff to what is now
called an objective classification system conducted by classification teams.
Objective classification systems are those in which classification decisions are based on
explicitly defmed criteria rather than subjective judgements. The objective criteria used are
organized into a classification instrument accompanied by operational procedures for applying
the instrument to inmates in a systematic manner. The objectivity of a classification system is a
matter of degree, for the creation of these systems involves subjective judgements. All the
classification systems currently in place incorporate some subjective judgements.
Objective classification systems produce more uniform decisions and tend to treat offenders
fairly and consistently. Classification systems place offenders in appropriately secure facilities
or settings; this is known as security level assignment. The degree of freedom an offender can
experience within a security level is known as custody level. Classification systems consider
factors such as crime, sentence length, custody level, mental health, substance abuse,
education, medical status, programmatic needs, and many other areas. Objective classification
also applies to offenders supervised by probation and parole staff.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections implemented an objective classification system for
inmates in 1982. The objective classification instrument was developed with the input of
corrections professionals from Oklahoma and with the assistance of nationally recognized
consultants. The system has been updated and improved several times since inception. The
latest effort to revise and upgrade the classification instrument began in June 1994 and is
scheduled for completion by February 1995.
Oklahoma's classification system begins in the community with the placement of probation and
parole clients on a supervision level. Officers review a client's background, sentence, court
orders, substance abuse history, community stability, and other factors to accurately assign
offenders to supervision levels. Classification continues with the sentencing of an offender to
incarceration. Initial classification takes place at Lexington Assessment and Reception Center.
It takes into account sentence length, behavioral history, prior offenses, escape history, and
additional factors such as court orders, programmatic needs, and health status. Case managers
at LARC assess offenders and recommend a security level and programmatic assignment. A
classification committee assigns the offenders based on the case managers' recommendations
and available facility bedspace. The available space usually dictates the location the inmate is
placed in the Oklahoma system, but offenders are assigned to the security level best suited to
meet the department's mission to protect the public, the employee, and the offender.
After facility placement, the classification process continues with facility staff orientating the
offenders to the new setting and case managers assessing the offenders for appropriate internal
custody and program assignment. Program assignment may include education, vocational
education, a self-help counseling program, a facility work crew, prisoner public works
programs, and many others. State statute requires offenders to be reviewed every 120 days.
This classification review examines the offender's adjustment and progress. During this review
case managers are responsible for reclassifying offenders if warranted, due to status changes
such as eligibility for vo-tech, substance abuse or other programs, higher or lower security,
etc. Reclassification considers the amount of time remaining to serve, behavioral conduct,
adjustment to incarceration, escape history, and additional factors as were considered during
initial classification.
Oklahoma's classification system is applied to thousands of inmates monthly in facilities and
probation and parole districts. The Population Management unit at Lexington is responsible for
monitoring the classification system and coordinating offender movement as dictated by
classification and reclassification assignments. The chief of Staff and Operations supervises the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections' efforts to ensure quality in the offender classification
system.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Facility Capacity Authorized by the Board of Corrections
January 1995
Board
Male Authorized Legal
Security Region Facility Capacity Capacity
Level
Maximum Central Lexington A&R Male 280 388
Central Lexington A&R Female 40 48
Central Mabel Bassett CC 136 77
Southeastern OK State Penitentiary 1493 1528
Medium Central Joseph Harp 899 856
Central Lexington CC 660 564
Central Mabel Bassett ec 159 79
Northeastern Dick Conner CC 1000 873
Southeastern Mack Alford CC 499 576
Western OK State Reformatory 603 425
Western James Crabtree CC 573 469
Central Mabel Bassett CC 39 25
Minimum Central Lexington MSU 196 182
Northeastern Eddie Warrior CC 500 376
Northeastern Northeast OK CC 146 146
Northeastern John Lilley CC 582 500
Northeastern Jess Dunn CC 850 473
Northeastern Dick Conner CC MSU 170 197
Southeastern Jackie Brannon ec 339 159
Southeastern Howard McLeod CC 575 303
Southeastern Ouachita CC 516 457
Southeastern Mack Alford CC MSU 221 163
Western OK State Reformatory MSU 178 100
Western Wm. S. KeyCC 415 172
Western James Crabtree CC MSU 184 132
Western Northwest eee 0
Community Central Carver ewc (contract) 65 65
Central Kate Barnard cee 167 97
Central Oklahoma City cec 206 118
Central Clara Waters CCC 214 175
Northeastern Muskogee ecc 88 47
Northeastern Tulsa cce Female 102 54
Northeastern Tulsa CCC Male 106 54
Southeastern Idabel ewe 80 80
Southeastern Jackie Brannon ceu 162 89
Southeastern Holdenville CWC 84 84
Southeastern OSP Talw. Heights 46 46
Western OK State Reformatory ewcs 419 380
Western Beaver ewc 43 45
Western Enid ecc 105 37
Western Lawton CCC 134 41
Western Lawton cec CWCs 358 300
Male Total 10980
Sum Total 13632
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Design & Implementation of the
New Objective Classification System
Consultant: James Austin, Ph. D.
National Council on Crime & Delinquency
Proposed Work Plan:
Task 1.
Month 1
Establish Classification Advisory Committee
NCCD consultant Jim Austin recommends
establishment of a Classification Advisory Committee
Task 2. Conduct a statistical analysis of the classification profile of the
Month 1-2 community, minimum and medium security populations.
Task 3. Make appropriate modifications of the current system.
Month 3
Task 4. Initiate process for major redesign of the current system.
Months 3-12
4.1 Develop criteria for initial and reclassification decision-making
4.2 Design prototype instruments and associated policy/procedures manual
4.3 Conduct pilot test
a. Draw pilot test sample
b. Train staff to be involved in the pilot test
c. Complete prototype classification forms on pilot test sample
d. Conduct statistical analysis of pilot test sample
4.4 Modify the prototype instruments based on the pilot test statistical analysis
4.5 Write the classification manual
4.6 Develop MIS classification applications and management reports
4.7 Assist in the training of all staff in the new system and its use
4.8 Implement the new system
4.9 Audit the implemented system to verify successful implementation
and to make modifications as needed.
COMPARISON OF OBJECTlVE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
CORRECTIONAL AGENCY CAPACITIES by SECURITY LEVEL on January 1, 1994
Percentage of Bedspace Allocated to:
Jurisdiction Total Beds Multi-level Maximum Close/High Medium Minimum Community Receptioni
Security Security Security Security Security Security Diagnostic
Oklahoma 100.0% 8.8% 12.0% 7.7% 23.8% 34.9% 10.4% 2.6%
wOklahoma+ Total 100.0% 7.4% 10.1% 6.5% 20.0% 29.3% 24.7% 2.2%
Arkansas 100.0% 23.7% 19.3% 5.4% 39.2% 6.6% 5.8%
ColoradO 1000% 3.6% 6.4% 4.3% 58.4% 22.0% 5.4%
Kansas 1000% 86.4% 2.3% 7.6% 3.7%
Missouri 100.0% 38.7% 16.1% 16.3% 13.8% 6.2% 2.8% 6.0%
New Mexico 100.0% 6.0% 8.1% 54.5% 31.4%
Texas 100.0% 2.5% 45.6% 9.9% 31.8% 4.2% 2.8% 3.3%
Regional Total 100.0% 13.4% 31.3% 9.1% 29.9% 9.6% 2.9% 3.8%
( Incl. Oklahoma)
FBOP 1000% 11.3% 29.2% 28.0% 25.9% 5.7%
National Total 100.0% 22.0% 13.3% 9.1% 31.0% 14.3% 4.9% 5.3%
Arizona 1000% 130% 20.8% 32.6% 31.3% 0.9% 1.4%
California 100.0% 4.0% 12.4% 23.5% 21.5% 17.4% 8.3% 12.8%
Connecticut 100.0% 28.2% 10.8% 25.0% 17.8% 17.5% 0.8%
Florida 1000% 58.7% 2.2% 19.8% 5.5% 13.8%
Indiana 100.0% 1.6% 1.8% 31.9% 53.6% 9.2% 1.9%
Nevada 100.0% 15.9% 59.3% 22.5% 2.3%
New York 100.0% 2.9% 28.5% 54.4% 11.0% 3.2%
Permsylvania 100.0% 20.6% 40.6% 26.3% 2.6% 9.8%
South Carolina 100.0% 56.6% 32.9% 8.8% 1.8%
Tennessee 100.0% 5.1% 13.5% 48.0% 15.9% 5.0% 12.6%
Vermont 100.0% 78.2% 21.8%
Washington 100.0% 61.8% 1.4% 6.1% 17.0% 13.8%
*Oklahoma+: Community Security+ EMP/SSP/PPCS
CORRECTIONAL AGENCY CAPACITIES by SECURITY LEVEL on January 1, 1994
Jurisdiction Total Beds Multi-level Maximum Close/High Medium Minimum Community Reception
Arizona 16,091 2,088 3,340 5,247 5,041 144 231
Arkansas 8,014 1,896 1,550 432 3,138 531 467
California 69,013 2,760 8,560 16,247 14,866 12,019 5,720 8,841
Colorado 7,880 282 504 336 4,602 1,732 424
Connecticut 12,133 3,416 1,306 3,031 2,158 2,122 100
FBOP 78,493 8,897 22,891 21,942 20,292 4,471
Florida 54,043 31,728 1,176 10,702 2,985 7,452
Indiana 12,255 200 224 3,905 6,566 1,129 231
Kansas 6,448 5,574 150 488 236
Missouri 15,911 6,164 2,566 2,600 2,195 983 445 958
Nevada 6,440 1,026 3,820 1,446 148
New Mexico 3,571 214 288 1,946 1,123
New York 61,761 1,763 2,898 33,606 6,813 1,962
Oklahoma 12,466 1,091 1,492 959 2,962 4,346 1,296 320
Pennsylvania 18,844 3,883 7,654 4,960 491 1,856
South Carolina 16,214 9,172 5,330 1,424 288
Tennessee 11,957 612 1,610 5,734 1,900 595 1,506
Texas 72,854 1,790 33,191 7,228 23,192 3,030 2,006 2,417
Vermont 785 614 171
Washington 7,996 4,938 108 487 1,361 1,102
Total 474,588 67,127 59,069 48,107 154,602 70,367 28,460 32,137
National Total 776,790 166,874 109,602 86,084 241,136 112,894 37,130 40,250
Regional Total 127,144 17,011 39,741 11,555 38,035 12,233 3,747 4,822
Oklahoma+ Total 14,838 1,091 1,492 959 2,962 4,346 3,668 320
*Oklahoma+( EMP/SSP/PPCS) total 1-1-94 = 2372 add to community
INITIAL SECURITY ASSIGNMENT
DOC# Name Race
RCP FAC CLS Date --/---/ - Transfer Reason ------------------------ Priority (NIT by POP office) Date recorded in POP office, _
Control Offense Code Controlling current release date, _
NUMBEROFCCCASES _
Sex RID l20JR _
SUM OF CS CASES, _
TOTAL CURRENT RELEASE DATE __ /__ /__
I. Offense Category
AB
.
C.
D.
Points
SECURITY
II. Sentence Length
AB
.
C.
D.
E.
Points
Ill. Prior Convictions
2 or more (Category A or B)
o
Points
IV. Escape History
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
Points
V. Conduct Points
TOTAL SCORE
Assessed Security Level: Max. Med. Min. Comm.Serv. Comm.Res.
ADDmONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
Separatee __ Suicidal Under Investigation __ Priority Needs __
Pending Felony Charges, Warrants, or Detainers __ Medical/Communicable Disease
Aggressive/Assaultive __ Date(s) _/ _/ _ What Occurred? _
Assigned Security Grade: Max. _ Med. Min. Comm.Serv. Comm.Res. ---
Inmate Signature _ Assessment Performed by _
Classification Committee Additional Comments _
I:\DOCFORMS\060211EWPD DOC 060211E (0195)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITY ASSIGNMENT FORM
Attachment A
~ecommending Facility: If priority,
Population Off~ce Pers. In~t~als
Number: ~- Date of Recommendation ---l~ _ Date Received By
Population Office: _1_1_
Inmate's Last Name: ___________________ First: _ Sex:
1. REASoN E'OR TRANSE'ER (Mark Appropr~ate Items):
Initial Placement
___ Security Adjustment
Medical Treatment
___ Program Need
___Disciplinary Unit:Number of Days
___Law Library Usage DU Commenced
___ Parole Board Stipulation
___Mediation Hearing
Transit Detention
Protective measures
Other:
___ Service Agency
House Arrest
___ Pre-Hearing Detention
____R_e_t_u_r_n__t_o__F_a_cil~i-t-y~DAUfter:
____________ ~Law Library Usage
___Misconduct Expungement
LARC Re-Evaluation
PPCS
Race:----
Current Assign Security
After Completion of
SASS
Max
MED
.MIN
COM Work Center
COM RES
PPCS
11 . BRIEl" DESCRIPTION Of'REASoN E'oR TRANSE'ER:
III. RECOMMENDED TRANSFER:
P21rnsodtgrPParrmiioorrniietteyyd. Area (Code of Program) __ Geographic Area ~ _
Iv. E'ccACTION: Geographic Area----------------------------
CIhnamiartpeCe'orsnscouSnri::g~n~aY~eNtso~u~r~e~I:f~C-Nh-oa-,n-g-eR-e-at-so-o:-n-:--------------
Routine--------~~~~~~=-~==~~~~-----
CCaorserecMtainoangaelr: C·~o~u~n~s~e~l~o~r~:~-----------------
Date: ~~_
Date: ~~_
Facility Head ReCvaiseew:M-a-n"a'g!e:rE'Sru:p:ear~vc~:s"o'r:~..,l-.:~"'!;t~y;"""'!Hr.:e::-:a::-:d:r""'!R,-:e::-:v:-:"~::-:e::-:w-:--
(PopuLATION oE'F'lcEACTION)
Date of Assignment: I I
Waiting List: Yes--- ~ --
Date pf Transfer: ---'== I__
-~A-ns-hsAaiCdngocmnneimcneuinrsttwriTRatretheaiasvtoeRmnee:cnoAtmdmjeuOnsbdtjametecintotinve(i.e.,
~tsaipcoahncOi,etehvereeretdcu.c)ebetotveerrcrroawcdiianlg,disbterdi-bu_-
TEeCoInncmuarte is-AsDsoigNnoetd Cotnoc:u-r---
s~gnature of Populat~on Coord~nator
FoforwFaarcdielditytoClCaososr.dinDaattoer ~~ __
Denied ~C~oo~r~d~~~n~a~t~o~r~~~of~~l"ac~l~ty class
Reason:
162040/FORMS/FORMSIGN DOC 062040 (0590)
Page 1 of 2
DEPAR'I'HEHT OF CORRECI'IONS REO.ASSIFICATIOM SECIIRI1Y ASSESSHFJn'
~ / / Facility Code Type of Action Scheduled Reclass Unscheduled Reclass
t NaiDe- - Firsr-"7 DOCNumber eM ID
rerrt Se-cu-r-l...,t""y"....,.r:e..".v~e~lr-:s~:-HHlDall'IaW::lI-:x~llDUICIOl~liD=iI-. Servo Comm.Res. HA/PPCS ---------
tIRE LEP'i' 1'0 MOVE: The Inmate is
'ontro.l l ing CRD (days)
f es cases -raays) Total CRD (Days) 1/3 Total Time Date / .
v'hoose the alternative which descriO'eSThe inmate's current sentencef -- ---
lRITYPOINTS
l3 a. Has death sentence.
9 b. Has time left to serve for a violent offense which is greater than 5,479 days, or
Has time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is greater than 7305 days:-
3 c. Has time left to serve for a violent offense which is less than or equal to 5479 days, or
Has time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is less than or equal to 7305 days, or
Has served 1/3 of total term of incarceration of l6t436 days. -
1 d. Has time left to serve for a violent offense which 1S less than or equal to 2922 days, or
Has time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is less than or equal to ~3 days and meets
prisoner public works eligibility criteria and has no security conduct points, o e. Has a total time left to serve for a violent offense which is less than an or equal to 1461 days, or
Has a total time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is less than or equal to 2192 days, Or
Has less than 660 days (22 months) on sex offense or drug distribution/trafficking conviction or 15 within
ISO days of PPCSeligibility date and meets the time criteria specified above.
roNOOC'l': The inmate's conduct record indicates that the inmate has been found guiity of one or more offenses.
Do not count offenses for escapes or attempts for which escape points have been assessed, or offenses which e lso
resulted in a felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction.
PTS. OFFENSE PTS.
a. OVer 15
b. 14-15
c. 10-13
d. 8-9
e. 6-7
f. 3-5
g. 0-2
OFFENSPEOINTSDEFINITION CODE CLASS--D-A-TE-An
offense conviction for dot (01-4) assault on staff (04-8), /__ / __
killing another person (04-1), or seizing another person or
persons (04-7) during this incarceration or within ten years
of prior incarceration equals 16 offense points.
A conviction of a violent felony committed while incar~erated
in last 2 years (from date of conviction) equals 14 offense
points. A serious Class A offense conviction during last
year: 01-1, 01-2, 01-3, 02-9, 04-2, '04-4, 04-5, 04-6,
04-9, 08-3, 09-1,
09-2 (if firearm or amunition), 09-7, or 16-2 equals 12
offense points.
A conviction of 04-3 equals 8 offense points for six months.
A Class A offense other than those listed above within last 6
months equals 4 offense points. Conviction of a nonviolent
felony while incarcerated in last 2 years equals 6 offense
points for 2 years. A Class B offense within last 6 IIOIlths
equals 2 offense points. A Class C offense within last 60
days equals 1 offense point. Conviction of a ai.sdeseanor
committed while incarcerated within last 6 months equals 3
offense points.
.- - ,- _/_/ ~".
---_/_'/-
---_/_/_.
-- -- -- --/--/---
---_/_/_ ..,
---_/_/-
---_/_/_~ .•.
a. Inmate has not made an effort to enroll or has not satisfactorily participated in assigned programs within
the last 120 days. Not to be used to iDcrease security level by lIinimumsecurity or above.
For following, must serve 15%of sentence non-violent or 20%violent. To be used by mediumand maximum
security only.
: b. Inmate has been assigned to earned credit levelland has maintained this level for 12 consecutive months.
c. Inmate has maintained class level 4 for 12 consecutive months.
None of the above
ESCAPE BISTC:ItY: The inmate has absconded, escaped, or attempted escape (select most serious):
From maximum/mediumsecurity status during this incarceration or within 10 yrs. from former incarceration.
Escape date: / / Apprehension date: / /
, b. Twoor more ~pes from minimumCTC,esc, PPCS, PECC,ora combination "Within the last ten years.
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ /__ /__
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ /__ / __
3 c. From minimumsecurity within the last five years.
Escape date: __ /__ / __ Apprehension date: __ / __ /__
l"'age .:. OJ .;
ility Last Name DOC Numbe.r Date _/ __ / __
4 d. From community security (ere, ese, PECC) within the
Escape date: __ / __ 7__ APPrehension date:
From PPCS or HA within the last two years.
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ / __ / __
Absconded from probation, parole, was A'WOLotr forfeited bond within
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ /__ / __
None of the above.
last three years.
--/--/-- 2 e.
1 f. last 1 year. .: -"'_.
o g.
ALSCORE Assessed security Level: Max. Med.
13+
Min.
8-12
Comm.Serv. COfllI. Res .
2-7 1 o
ADDITIORAL SEaJRI'IY OlNSIDl!RATIOfiS (Cbeclt All 1bat Apply)
Interstate 'Warrant/Detainer Priority Needs _
Out of state 'Warrant/Detainer Other _
Pending Felony Litigation _
Unofficial Notice of Detainer Escape Grandfathered ---------
Age
aratee
ressive/Assaultive
cidal
er Investigation
ical override due to
BUnicable disease
lanation:
Kaodatory Override (<lleck All 'l1lat Apply)
Inmate has or ever has been convicted of sex crimes (No lower than minimum security)
Inmate is serving--term of life"without parole' (No lower than medium security),
Inmate is sentenced under Title 22 0.5. Section 1404. (No lower than minimum)
Yes No Meets all criteria Date of PPCS Docket ------~ Yes No:'RecOlllllended by Parole Board? S ELIGIBILI'lY: (
lQiEI) SEaIRI1Y GRADE: Max. Med. Min. Comm.Servo CoDIII.Res.
ate signature:_-:-- __ -:- Assessment Prepared By: _
ssification Committee/Unit Team:
IIIeIlts:------------------------------------------------------------
IFll AITIlDU1Y:
cur Changed to:
...
Max. Med. Min. Comm.Servo Comm.Res.
son fJJr Change:
Routine: case Manager Supervisor Date __ / __ / __
Non-Routine: Facility Head Signature Date __ / __ / __
Inmate Signature: Date __ / __ / __
RDINATCR OF FACII.ITY CLASSIFICATION REVIE5l:
nged to: Max. Med. Min. Comm.Serv.
son for Change:
nature: Date __ / __ / __
Comm. Res.
TRIBUTlON: 'White-Field File
Gold-offender Copy
Pink-Facility Classification
canary-Temporary Copy for Field File
DOC 0620c._
042/FORMS/FORMSIGN
CI<1.AHOMADEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONS
Dn'RA-FACIUTY ASSISNMENT FORM
Attachment B
DOC Form 061001
OP-060204
F~ _
DAT! _1_1_
. SECTION I: IDENTIFICATION
~~~e~ -----------------------_ DaC NlJeat RAce
!ENl'a4ce YEARS MONTHS DA'(g --
___ SEX:
C.R.D. DcK/'Y'tl: _1_
see rICH I%: ASSISNMen' ACTIONS
T'YR OF ACT1QH
..rea ASSI&NtEHT
HCUSIN8 ASSI&NNENT'
PAO&RAN ASSlliHMEHT
O'na
.TO
EFFECrlVE DA~
NMlDDIYY
_1_1-
_1_1-
_1_1-
_1_1-
DAT! MMI'N
_1-
_1_.
_1-
nn~~. _
NEWC.R.D. DCM/Y'tl: _ I _
SECTION xv: APPROVAL.
OlHER COC NtJto4B6l
_1_1-
OAT!
DOC- 011001 IREY 101m

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

C 5700.8 C614s 1995 c.1
1~111~lllill~i~IIII~III!III!III!III~11 A 1 5 3 0 7 6 9 4 4 7 0
Department of Corrections
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
18000
17000
16000
15000 !14000
13000
12000
11000
:i 190000000
Z 8000
I!s 7000
6000
5000
4000J 1950:12.373 ~
32000000J~.~~~-~~::::::::::::~;:~~~~~~;-~~~;-~~~~-;~~
50
1000000
900000
~ 800000 j 700000
~ 600000
1500000
I!s 400000 •• 300000
200000
100000~1--------------------------------.----------------------------------
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92
GROWTH OF NAnONAL m:> STATEWIDE It\t.4ATE POPlA.A TIONS
00 OF YEAR COUNTSFROM1950 TIflOUGi 1993
OKLAHOMA
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92
lJ-.lITED STATES
1950 :I 166.123
2-13-95 R&E
II Table of Contents II
Summary 1
The Classification System Issue 2
Does the Oklahoma Department of Corrections place inmates
with violent convictions at low security? If so, why? 2
How do other states compare? 5
Should we change this system? How do we go about
changing these practices? 5
Can we move community and minimum security violent
offenders to medium and maximum security? 6
Can we move medium security nonviolent offenders
to nn.mm. um secunt.y. ? . . 7
What if we scrap the old system and adopt a system in use by
another jurisdiction? What other instruments can we adopt
quickly, Bureau of Prisons, Pennsylvania? 8
Tables and Charts
Authorized Bedspace By Security Level 3
Average Sentence Length By Security 3
Bedspace Distribution Comparison 4
Selected Distribution of Bedspace by Security Level 5
Inmate Characteristics By Security (%) 6
Inmate Characteristics By Security (Number) 7
Reason for Inmate Security Level 8
Comparison of Objective Classification Systems 9
Comparison of Reclassification Factors 10
Comparison of Objective Classification Systems 10
Re-Distribution of Oklahoma Bedspace to Meet Bureau of Police
Classification System 11
Comparison ofInmate Classification (Oklahoma to Bureau of Police) 11
Re-Distribution of Oklahoma Bedspace to Meet Pennsylvania
Classification System 12
Comparison ofInmate Classification (Oklahoma to Pennsylvania) 12
Comparison of Inmate Classification to the Federal Bureau of Prisons 14
Comparison of Inmate Classification to the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections 15
Recommendations 16
Appendices 17
SUMMARY
There is growing concern about the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' classification system and
the placement of violent offenders in low security. The objective inmate classification system,
developed in 1982, has been revised to reflect the additional bedspace that the legislature has
authorized. More and more bedspace has been added at the lowest levels of security. As a result,
Oklahoma has a significantly higher proportion of low security bedspace than the national or
regional norm. Bedspace is in use that should not be according to the Board of Corrections capacity
survey completed in January 1995. To be in compliance with the law, over 2,700 beds would have
to be taken out of use immediately.
Since 1984, 3,999 beds were added in low security. During this time period outcount categories
such as pre-parole conditional supervision and electronic monitoring grew by 2,300 inmates. Sixty-eight
percent of new inmate capacity was added to low security, while only thirty-two percent of the
new bedspace was at higher security. The expansion in maximum security space was obtained by
double celling Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections assigns inmates to security levels based on the
classification system which is based on the relative risk that the inmate poses. This classification
system takes into account sentence length, crime type, and other factors to place inmates
appropriately. Approximately 29 percent of the inmates at community security and 40 percent of
the inmates at minimum security have controlling cases for violent crimes. Forty-eight of fifty states
assign inmates with violent convictions to low security.
Compared to other states, Oklahoma is upside down in the ratio of inmates from high to low
security. Oklahoma ratio of high to low security is 45 percent to 55 percent, the regional average is
70 percent to 30 percent, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is 68.4 percent to 31.6 percent, and the
national average is 63 percent to 37 percent.
If Oklahoma was to reclassify inmates with violent convictions from low to high security with the
current classification system, 3,571 inmates would have to be moved to high security.
Using an existing classification instrument from another jurisdiction would reflect the classification
methodology of that jurisdiction. A sample of Oklahoma inmates was reclassified using the Federal
Bureau of Prisons instrument and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections classification
instrument. Adoption of either system would require Oklahoma to add high security bedspace to
fit the new classification system, ranging from an addition of 1,274 high security beds to fit
Pennsylvania's to an addition of 4,482 maximum security beds to fit the Bureau of Prisons's
classification system.
1
THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ISSPE
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections' inmate classification system was developed as an
objective classification system in 1982. Over the years, the system has been revised to reflect the
additional bedspace that the legislature has authorized. More and more bedspace has been added at
the lowest levels of security. As a result, Oklahoma has a significantly higher proportion of low
security bedspace than the national or regional norm. Oklahoma has added space to keep pace with
the continuously rising demand for incarceration. Bedspace is in use that should not be according
to the Board of Corrections' capacity survey which was based on an analysis of Oklahoma, federal,
and national standards. There is concern about the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
classification system's placement of violent offenders in low security.
1. Does the Oklahoma Department of Corrections place inmates with violent convictions
at low security? If so, why?
There are 3,571 offenders with violent convictions in minimum and community security.
An objective classification risk assessment instrument is used to calculate risk factors for this
placement. If an inmate scores at the lower end of the risk assessment, placement in
minimum or community security is directed. Exclusionary criteria limit the longer sentence
lengths and prohibit certain crimes from placement in the lowest security levels. Override
factors keep targeted offense groups out of community security such as sex offenders or
inmates with offenses against children. A copy of the risk assessment instrument and a
detailed discussion of the classification system is included in the appendix. Approximately
29 percent of the community security level inmates have a current case for a violent offense
and about 40 percent of minimum security offenders.
Inmates in high security generally have longer sentence lengths than those in lower security.
Higher security inmates have sentences that average around 30 years or more in length, while
lower security inmates typically have 12 years or less to serve. The majority of inmates in
higher security have violent controlling cases and a violent conviction within the past ten
years. Many have prior incarcerations and escape records. Inmates at lower security levels
are less likely to have violent convictions either as controlling cases or prior cases. These
inmates are less likely to have escape records but may be slightly more likely to have prior
incarcerations. This latter issue may be a factor of inmates more experienced in serving time
behaving better, resulting in reclassification to lower security more quickly.
1500 iA
2
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Authorized Bedspace By Security Level
Inmate Population - January, 1995
13312
C/) _
-0
Q) co
-0 1"!'
Q) :Jl
N ~ .§ l
..•r...:.
::::I «
Maximum Medium Minimum
Security Level
PPCS/SSP/EM All
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Average Sentence Length By Security
3
•(..f..) 4
co
(j) >-
Q)
() 3
C
(j) .•....c
(j)
(f)
(j)
•cO..o.J.
Q) >
«1
------------------------
Average Sentence Years
-----------------------------_ .._---
Maximum Medium Minimum Com/Res ppeS/SSP/EM All
Security Level
Oklahoma has used this classification system since 1982. Over the years, the procedures
have been revised to reflect the addition of new information or new bedspace. Basically, the
classification system assigns inmates based on the bedspace resources available. There are
four security levels of incarceration: maximum security, medium, minimum, and community.
The majority of Oklahoma's bedspace additions funded by the legislature have been in low
security--minimum and community security.
Since 1984, 3,999 beds were added in low security, 1,850 beds were added in higher security
and the outcount categories such as pre-parole conditional supervision and electronic
monitoring grew by 2,300 inmates. Sixty-eight percent of the new bedspace was added to
low security, while only thirty-two percent of the new bedspace was at higher security.
Maximum 819 1949 1130 3~~
Medium 3674 4400 726
Minimum 2196 4958 2762 bJ%
Community 1088 2325 1237
Totals 7777 13632 5855
Maximum 1949 2041 92
Medium 4393 3842 -551
Minimum 4911 3385 -1526
Community 2379 1712 -667
Totals 13632 10980 -2652
As low security space was added disproportionately to high security beds, the department
continued to adjust the classification system to help keep the low security beds full. While
the type of offender the agency classifies to minimum security appear to be poor risks,
they are relatively better risks than those who remain in medium.
It should be noted, that even though Oklahoma has added greatly to low security bedspace,
there has been a decline in the escape rate.
4
Oklahoma has added bedspace primarily by acquiring existing structures or double ceIling
housing areas. A prison bedspace capacity study that surveyed Oklahoma's laws, federal
standards, and legal issues in regard to prison bedspace utilization was presented to the
Board of Corrections in January 1995. This analysis, coordinated by an outside
consultant, revealed that Oklahoma is not in compliance with its own laws in regard to
occupancy limits in correctional facilities. To be in compliance with Oklahoma laws, the
Life Safety Code, OSHA guidelines, and other mandates, Oklahoma would need to reduce
the occupancy of correctional facilities by more than 2,700 inmates.
2. How do other states compare?
Many other states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons are in significantly better positions
than Oklahoma when it comes to addressing the placement of higher security inmates.
Oklahoma compares unfavorably to other states and to the national average when the
distribution of bedspace by security level is analyzed.
SELECTED DISTRIBUTION OF BEDSPACE BY SECURITY LEVEL
High Security Beds Low Security Beds
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Colorado
New Mexico
Texas
Regional Average
Federal Bureau of Prisons
National Average
45%
65%
69%
63%
87%
70%
68.4%
63%
55%
35%
31%
37%
13%
30%
31.6%
37%
A 50 state survey of classificationpractices was conducted by the Research and Evaluation
unit of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Of the 50 states and the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, all but two states (Arkansas and New Hampshire) do classify offenders with
violent convictions to low security.
3. Should we change this system? How do we go about changing these practices?
Yes, Oklahoma's classification instrument needs to be changed. It has not been validated
since inception in 1982. It is missing key items that might increase the accuracy of risk
assessment. For example, these items included in many classification models are not
included in Oklahoma's: age, educational level, marital status, employment status at arrest,
alcohol/drug abuse indicators, custody level at release from previous incarceration, inmate
needs assessment. In addition, Oklahoma's classification system is only partially
automated. To assess the entire offender population, a computer survey of offender
classification characteristics must be confirmed by manual reviews by field units.
5
Change in the classification system is accomplished by assessing the effect of manipulating
classification factors, such as of violent/nonviolent offenses, time left to serve, age, etc.,
and calculating the resulting impact on bedspace. Adopting a more conservative approach
to assigning inmates to security levels will necessitate additional higher security bedspace
to match the number of newly classified higher security inmates.
The classification system must make our inmate population fit into our existing
resources, i.e. bedspace. Oklahoma has applied for a National Institute of Corrections
grant to retain a consultant to help change the classification system. The grant is expected
to be awarded to Oklahoma within a few weeks. A national expert on classification
systems has already started working with us on this project. An advisory committee has
been formed and will meet February 27, 1995.
4. Can we move community and minimum security violent offenders to medium and
maximum security?
A total of 866 Oklahoma inmates at community security have controlling, concurrent, or
consecutive convictions for violent offenses; 1,167 inmates have violent convictions
within ten years. Nineteen hundred sixty-two (1,962) inmates at minimum security have
controlling, concurrent, or consecutive convictions for violent offenses; 2,404 have violent
convictions within ten years. The Department of Corrections would have to place 3,571
inmates from lower security into higher security to place all the inmates with violent
convictions within the last ten years in higher security.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Inmate Characteristics By Security
l00~--------------------------------------, Percent of Inmates By Security Level With The Characteristics Below
9 --.-------------------------
-o
(f) a
(l) 10
Ec
--------------------------------------------
73
+-'
C
(l) o'- (l) a.
MB.lIimum Medium Minimum Com/Res
Security Level
_ Viol Offense _ Viol 10 Yrs _ Prior Inc II!! Escape
6
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Inmate Characteristics By Security
Number of Inmates By Security Level With The Characteristics Below __ ---_.._------_.---------------------------------------
500
en
Q)
rtl
Ec
'to-
0•
....
Q) .0
E:::l
Z
------------------_._------------------------------------ ----
-----------331------------
________ . ?_4g~ . . . ._______________________________ _ _
2112
500 ----
Maximum Medium
Security Level
_ Viol Offense _ Viol 10 Yrs _ Prior Inc IE Escape
5. Can we move medium security nonviolentoffenders to minimum security?
A survey was taken on February 3, 1995, of all inmates that are currently housed at
medium and maximum security institutions. Facilities were asked to explain why inmates
with nonviolent current controlling cases were housed in medium and maximum security
facilities. A total 1,568 inmates were identified. The following factors were given for
medium security placement: sentence length, escape records, serious disciplinary record,
detainers, pending charges, violent consecutive cases, and various combinations of these
factors. There are also inmates housed in the higher levels that pose serious security
concerns for law enforcement or victim groups, are unable to live with other inmates, and
those that prey on other inmates if not segregated. Some inmates with nonviolent
convictions are even subject to life sentences, e.g., burglary, drug distribution, and others.
7
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Reason For Inmate Security Level
Inmates With Non-Violent Sentence At Maximum Or Medium Security
Unable to Determine
Other
Combined Esca e, Misconduct, Sent
Detainer or Charges Pending
Long Sentence Time to Serve
39.3%
Assessment of 1,568 Male Inmates
At Seven Max or Med Facilities
As of February 3, 1995
After review of the 1,568 inmates at medium and maximum security, few were eligible
for review for placement at lower security to replace the 3,571 low security inmates with
violent convictions within the past ten years. We are moving these inmates to minimum
security as they become eligible. This figure does not include the 2,700 beds that will be
lost if the department has to remove inmates from facilities that exceed occupancy
standards. A total of 6,271 beds would be needed to completely address placement of
inmates in low security with violent convictions in higher security beds and be in legal
compliance with institutional occupancy guidelines.
6. What if we scrap the old system and adopt a system in use by another jurisdiction?
What other instruments can we adopt quickly, Bureau of Prisons, Pennsylvania?
Installation of a new classification system is a time consuming process, one which involves
a group of corrections professionals meeting over an extended period of time examining
classification factors, bedspace, and system resources. Could we adopt an instrument
already in use in another state?
Oklahoma Department of Corrections obtained documentation on 17 classification
instruments in the fall of 1994. Dr. James Austin of the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, a nationally known expert on classification procedures, was consulted. Dr.
Austin suggested that we conduct a study of the impact of two of these instruments on
Oklahoma inmates. The classification instruments chosen were from the Federal Bureau
of Prisons and from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
8
Our research unit selected a stratified, random sample of 500 inmates representing all
security levels in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. On February 6 through 7, the
files on these inmates were reviewed by 30 + Department of Corrections staff trained in
the use of the Bureau of Prisons and Pennsylvania classification instruments. There are
some differences between the three systems--Oklahoma, Bureau of Prisons, and
Pennsylvania. Oklahoma's system is the simplest to use and has the fewest classification
factors. Pennsylvania, which has truth-in-sentencing, has a classification system based
heavily on offense severity and the inmates behavior while in prison. The Bureau of
Prisons has the most complicated classification system, taking into account the most
variables.
Detainers
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Number of Priors
Time to Serve Time to Serve
Time Served
Escapes
Prior Inst. Adjustment
Number of Incidents
Violence History
Precommitment Status
Drug/Alcohol History
Mental/Psych. Status
Responsibility
Family/Community Ties
Sentence Length
Escapes
Prior Inst. Adjustment
Additional Factors
Escapes
Prior Inst. Adjustment
Stability Factors:
Age/Marital/Employment
9
Time Served
Escapes
Disciplinary Severity
Number of Incidents
Institutional Adjustment
Additional Factors
Offense Severity
Prior Offenses
Escapes
Disciplinary Severity
Number of Incidents
Violence History
Age
Institutional Adjustment
Program Participation
Work Performance
Housing Performance
Precommitment Status
Drug/Alcohol History
MentallPsychological Status
Responsibility
Family/Community Ties
Detainers
Offense Severity
Prior Severity
Time to Serve
Time Served
Escapes
Disciplinary Severity
Number of Incidents
Violence History
Age
Educational Level
Marital Status
Employment Status at Arrest
Drug Abuse
Custody Level at Release on Previous Incarceration
Reclassification
Reflect Actual Time to Serve or Parole Eligibility
Include Inmate Needs Assessment
Lack of Automation for the Entire System
10
The study found that using the Bureau of Prisons classification system to classify
Oklahoma Department of Corrections inmates would result in reclassifying the majority
of inmates in medium, minimum, and community security to higher levels of security. If
you take this study and compare it to Department of Corrections' current capacity,
excluding the reception center, a major expansion of maximum security bedspace would
be needed to accommodate use of the BOP classification instrument. Oklahoma's
maximum security bedspace would have to expand from 1,629 beds to over 6,111 beds.
Oklahoma's bedspace distribution would have to change from 45 percent high security and
55 percent low security to 72 percent high security and 28 percent low security using the
Bureau of Prisons system.
Existing
Bedspace
1629 4400 4958 2325
Redistributed
Bedspace
6111 3474 1719 2008
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
Oklahoma Prison Bedspace Redistributed According To Federal BOP Criteria
Maximum
Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates 1331213312
(Excludes 320 Beds at Reception Center)
Secure Beds
Okla = 6,029 (45%)
BOP = 9,585 (72%)
Non-Secure Beds
Okla = 7,283 (55%)
BOP = 3,727 (28%)
Medium Min/Low Comm/Min ppeS/SSP/EM
Oklahoma/BOP Security Level
All
1_ Oklahoma _ Federal/BOP I
11
Pennsylvania's classification system would cause some realignment of Oklahoma resources
if implemented. The study found that Pennsylvania's system would rearrange Oklahoma's
inmate population rather than cause a major shift to maximum security. Adjustments
would be needed in all levels of security. A total of 1,274 more beds would be needed in
maximum and medium security, 862 more beds would be needed in minimum security,
and there would be a decrease of 2,136 beds in community security. Oklahoma's bedspace
distribution would have to change from 45 percent high security and 55 percent low
security to 55 percent high security and 45 percent low security using the Pennsylvania
system.
Existing
Bedspace
1629 4400 4958 2325
Re-distributed
Bedspace
2039 5264 5820 169
co: +:: ::J .D
...•:.::.:. ., en "0 o ~
~l catl.
en
"'0
Q) co
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
Oklahoma Prison 8edspace Redistributed According To Pennsylvania Criteria
Results based on a random sample 01Oklahoma Inmates 1331213312
(Excludes 320 Beds at Reception Center)
Secure Beds
Okla = 6,029 (45%)
Penn = 7,303 (55%)
Non-Secure Beds
Okla = 7,283 (55%)
Penn = 6,009 (45%)
5820
189
Max/Close Medium Minimum Comm/Res PPCS/SSP/EM All
Oklahoma/Pennsylvania Security Level
1_ Oklahoma _ Pennsylvania I
12
The Pennsylvania system is the more practical of the two classification systems to adopt
because there is less adjustment in current resources so less cost is involved. It is
important to note that Pennsylvania has a uniform sentencing code, so there is less
variation in sentence length than in Oklahoma. Sentence length would probably have to
continue to be a classificationfactor until Oklahomaadopts uniform sentencing guidelines.
13
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To the Federal Bureau of Prisons
o,o
CD
Cii a:;
""0
OJ
LL o•...
OJ c:
'6ooo«
Results based 92 on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates
•... c:
Q)
~
oO,J
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Result of Classification According to Federal BOP Criteria) 1_ Higher _ Same _ Lower ~
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To the Federal Bureau of Prisons
o, 10 92
0
CD
~
OJ
""0
OJ
LL
0 •...
OJ c:
'E0
oo«C
2
OJ ~
aO,J
Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates
-------------67----------------
64
Maximum
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Federal Bureau of Prisons Classification Legend Below)
I_High III Minimum _ Medium _ Low I
14
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
~ 10~------------------~----------------------~9 o Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates 4~----------~
.~ C
CO >>
-
(/)
C
C
cQ,)
.8
01 c :ao
(J ;).
.•...
C
Q)
(~J cQ..).
gr>+----
310+-----
2'0-1-----
o
Maximum Medium
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Result of Classification According to Pennsylvania Criteria) 1_ Higher - Same - Lower I
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Comparison of Inmate Classification
To The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections oo
o 1ocry--------------------------------------------------------~
co 'c
~>-
(/)
CC
Q)
0-
.8
01
C 'Eo(J o«
Results based on a random sample of Oklahoma Inmates
_._-------._--_ ._. ._-_ .._. ._----------------------------.....j
.•....
C
Q) o~
cQ..).
8 - -- - ..------- ..- ..-.- ..- ..- --.- -----------.--- -- -------J
7 - --- ..--- ..- -.-._-.- -- ..--.--.- ------ ..-.-- -- ..--.--
6 ..-.-.-.- ..-.--- -.--------.-.--- ..--.-- ..----- _ _._SR. . -.-.- .
. ~a ._ .._.._49 ._.
42
Maximum Medium Minimum Com miRes PPCS/SSP/EM
Oklahoma Inmate Classification
(Pennsylvania DOC Classification Legend Below) 1_ Close _ Minimum EEl Community _ Medium I
15
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Overhaul the current classification system. The process to accomplish this has already
begun. A National Institute of Corrections grant is likely and a national expert is assisting
in this process. If the evaluation process is allowed to continue, a better quality product
will be developed.
B. Add medium beds through expansion of county jail contracts. A supplemental
appropriation has been requested to allow Department of Corrections to meet bedspace
needs for this fiscal year. While this request does not allow a comprehensive
reclassification effort to take place, it does fund contracting for county jail beds. County
jails have contracted with Department of Corrections to house minimum and medium
security inmates. The contracted medium beds do contribute to meeting these
classification challenges.
C. Fully fund Department of Corrections' FY 96 appropriation request. Additional
medium security beds have been requested to meet growth needs for the coming year.
Alternatives have also been proposed to further expand medium security options such as
increasing the security level at several minimum security facilities. With these and other
new medium options, the classification system could be adjusted to realign the inmate
population.
D. Target specific offense categories and/or programs for classification factor changes.
Go through all high proftle programs that may elicit community concern. Meet with citizen
advisory boards, law enforcement representatives, victim liaisons, and impacted local
agencies to adjust inmate eligibility criteria for community/minimum security (electronic
monitoring program, half-way house, community work center, community corrections
center, prisoner public works program, etc.).
E. Target offense categories for removal from low security and placement at higher
security. A survey of offense categories at all levels of security will be conducted. The
medium security inmate population will be reviewed. Any medium security inmate
serving time for a nonviolent conviction and no history of violence will be considered for
transfer to lower security. As space becomes available at higher security, targeted lower
security inmates will be moved up in security level.
16
II Appendices II
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Inmate Movement through the System
In county jail:
1. An inmate is sentenced to incarceration.
2. The sheriff calls the inmate's name in to LARC Population Office.
3. LARC Population places the inmate's name on a waiting list
4. The sheriff transports the inmate to LARC on the scheduled move day.
Oklahoma and Tulsa counties deliver to LARC weekly; all other counties are
scheduled. If a county is over capacity, it can give 72 hours notification to LARC
and expedite delivery to relieve jail overcrowding. The average number of days
an inmate is held by the county prior to delivery to LARC is 28--high average is
71 days for Kay County, Tulsa County average is 17 days. A list of county jails
and the number of inmates waiting for delivery to Department of Corrections is
attached. A total of 54 counties are holding 377 males and 49 females for
Department of Corrections.
At Lexington Assessment and Reception Center:
5. The inmate is received at LARC.
6. The inmate is assessed for classification assignment and medical status.
These factors are looked at for initial classification assessment: offense severity,
sentence length, conduct, prior incarcerations, escapes, program needs (TADD,
RID, FORT).
7. Psychological and educational tests are administered to the inmate.
8. Inmate files are initiated/re-opened; a number is given to the inmate.
9. The inmate is classified to a facility/program.
10. LARC Central Transportation Unit (CTU) transports the inmate to the facility.
At new facility:
11. The inmate is oriented to the new facility.
12. The inmate receives an internal custody designation, program, and work assignments.
13. An inmate becomes eligible for a new program.
These factors are looked at for reclassification assessment: time served, conduct,
incarceration adjustment, escapes.
14. A case manager submits a transfer request through the facility.
15. Upon approval at the facility, the request goes to LARC Population.
16. Upon approval at LARC Population, the inmate's name goes on a waiting list.
17. As space becomes available, Population authorizes the movement.
18. The inmate is transferred to the new program/facility by CTU.
Placement in outside agencies and contractors, such as with the Department of Mental
Health and halfway houses, requires permission from the contractor. Pre-parole
conditional supervision placement requires approval of the Pardon and Parole Board.
Prior to placement on pre-parole conditional supervision and on electronic monitoring
program, notification is made to law enforcement and victim liaisons for protest purposes
and home/telephone offers are verified.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Classification means "to put into meaningful categories." Classification is a term used in
corrections to describe the assignment of an offender to a security status, custody status, and
programmatic assignment. Classification denotes the action of assignment and can be applied
to describe the activity or staff involved, such as the classification committee. The Oklahoma
Department of Corrections classification practices have varied over the years. Classification
has progressed from a subjective review of offenders by correctional staff to what is now
called an objective classification system conducted by classification teams.
Objective classification systems are those in which classification decisions are based on
explicitly defmed criteria rather than subjective judgements. The objective criteria used are
organized into a classification instrument accompanied by operational procedures for applying
the instrument to inmates in a systematic manner. The objectivity of a classification system is a
matter of degree, for the creation of these systems involves subjective judgements. All the
classification systems currently in place incorporate some subjective judgements.
Objective classification systems produce more uniform decisions and tend to treat offenders
fairly and consistently. Classification systems place offenders in appropriately secure facilities
or settings; this is known as security level assignment. The degree of freedom an offender can
experience within a security level is known as custody level. Classification systems consider
factors such as crime, sentence length, custody level, mental health, substance abuse,
education, medical status, programmatic needs, and many other areas. Objective classification
also applies to offenders supervised by probation and parole staff.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections implemented an objective classification system for
inmates in 1982. The objective classification instrument was developed with the input of
corrections professionals from Oklahoma and with the assistance of nationally recognized
consultants. The system has been updated and improved several times since inception. The
latest effort to revise and upgrade the classification instrument began in June 1994 and is
scheduled for completion by February 1995.
Oklahoma's classification system begins in the community with the placement of probation and
parole clients on a supervision level. Officers review a client's background, sentence, court
orders, substance abuse history, community stability, and other factors to accurately assign
offenders to supervision levels. Classification continues with the sentencing of an offender to
incarceration. Initial classification takes place at Lexington Assessment and Reception Center.
It takes into account sentence length, behavioral history, prior offenses, escape history, and
additional factors such as court orders, programmatic needs, and health status. Case managers
at LARC assess offenders and recommend a security level and programmatic assignment. A
classification committee assigns the offenders based on the case managers' recommendations
and available facility bedspace. The available space usually dictates the location the inmate is
placed in the Oklahoma system, but offenders are assigned to the security level best suited to
meet the department's mission to protect the public, the employee, and the offender.
After facility placement, the classification process continues with facility staff orientating the
offenders to the new setting and case managers assessing the offenders for appropriate internal
custody and program assignment. Program assignment may include education, vocational
education, a self-help counseling program, a facility work crew, prisoner public works
programs, and many others. State statute requires offenders to be reviewed every 120 days.
This classification review examines the offender's adjustment and progress. During this review
case managers are responsible for reclassifying offenders if warranted, due to status changes
such as eligibility for vo-tech, substance abuse or other programs, higher or lower security,
etc. Reclassification considers the amount of time remaining to serve, behavioral conduct,
adjustment to incarceration, escape history, and additional factors as were considered during
initial classification.
Oklahoma's classification system is applied to thousands of inmates monthly in facilities and
probation and parole districts. The Population Management unit at Lexington is responsible for
monitoring the classification system and coordinating offender movement as dictated by
classification and reclassification assignments. The chief of Staff and Operations supervises the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections' efforts to ensure quality in the offender classification
system.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Facility Capacity Authorized by the Board of Corrections
January 1995
Board
Male Authorized Legal
Security Region Facility Capacity Capacity
Level
Maximum Central Lexington A&R Male 280 388
Central Lexington A&R Female 40 48
Central Mabel Bassett CC 136 77
Southeastern OK State Penitentiary 1493 1528
Medium Central Joseph Harp 899 856
Central Lexington CC 660 564
Central Mabel Bassett ec 159 79
Northeastern Dick Conner CC 1000 873
Southeastern Mack Alford CC 499 576
Western OK State Reformatory 603 425
Western James Crabtree CC 573 469
Central Mabel Bassett CC 39 25
Minimum Central Lexington MSU 196 182
Northeastern Eddie Warrior CC 500 376
Northeastern Northeast OK CC 146 146
Northeastern John Lilley CC 582 500
Northeastern Jess Dunn CC 850 473
Northeastern Dick Conner CC MSU 170 197
Southeastern Jackie Brannon ec 339 159
Southeastern Howard McLeod CC 575 303
Southeastern Ouachita CC 516 457
Southeastern Mack Alford CC MSU 221 163
Western OK State Reformatory MSU 178 100
Western Wm. S. KeyCC 415 172
Western James Crabtree CC MSU 184 132
Western Northwest eee 0
Community Central Carver ewc (contract) 65 65
Central Kate Barnard cee 167 97
Central Oklahoma City cec 206 118
Central Clara Waters CCC 214 175
Northeastern Muskogee ecc 88 47
Northeastern Tulsa cce Female 102 54
Northeastern Tulsa CCC Male 106 54
Southeastern Idabel ewe 80 80
Southeastern Jackie Brannon ceu 162 89
Southeastern Holdenville CWC 84 84
Southeastern OSP Talw. Heights 46 46
Western OK State Reformatory ewcs 419 380
Western Beaver ewc 43 45
Western Enid ecc 105 37
Western Lawton CCC 134 41
Western Lawton cec CWCs 358 300
Male Total 10980
Sum Total 13632
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Design & Implementation of the
New Objective Classification System
Consultant: James Austin, Ph. D.
National Council on Crime & Delinquency
Proposed Work Plan:
Task 1.
Month 1
Establish Classification Advisory Committee
NCCD consultant Jim Austin recommends
establishment of a Classification Advisory Committee
Task 2. Conduct a statistical analysis of the classification profile of the
Month 1-2 community, minimum and medium security populations.
Task 3. Make appropriate modifications of the current system.
Month 3
Task 4. Initiate process for major redesign of the current system.
Months 3-12
4.1 Develop criteria for initial and reclassification decision-making
4.2 Design prototype instruments and associated policy/procedures manual
4.3 Conduct pilot test
a. Draw pilot test sample
b. Train staff to be involved in the pilot test
c. Complete prototype classification forms on pilot test sample
d. Conduct statistical analysis of pilot test sample
4.4 Modify the prototype instruments based on the pilot test statistical analysis
4.5 Write the classification manual
4.6 Develop MIS classification applications and management reports
4.7 Assist in the training of all staff in the new system and its use
4.8 Implement the new system
4.9 Audit the implemented system to verify successful implementation
and to make modifications as needed.
COMPARISON OF OBJECTlVE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
CORRECTIONAL AGENCY CAPACITIES by SECURITY LEVEL on January 1, 1994
Percentage of Bedspace Allocated to:
Jurisdiction Total Beds Multi-level Maximum Close/High Medium Minimum Community Receptioni
Security Security Security Security Security Security Diagnostic
Oklahoma 100.0% 8.8% 12.0% 7.7% 23.8% 34.9% 10.4% 2.6%
wOklahoma+ Total 100.0% 7.4% 10.1% 6.5% 20.0% 29.3% 24.7% 2.2%
Arkansas 100.0% 23.7% 19.3% 5.4% 39.2% 6.6% 5.8%
ColoradO 1000% 3.6% 6.4% 4.3% 58.4% 22.0% 5.4%
Kansas 1000% 86.4% 2.3% 7.6% 3.7%
Missouri 100.0% 38.7% 16.1% 16.3% 13.8% 6.2% 2.8% 6.0%
New Mexico 100.0% 6.0% 8.1% 54.5% 31.4%
Texas 100.0% 2.5% 45.6% 9.9% 31.8% 4.2% 2.8% 3.3%
Regional Total 100.0% 13.4% 31.3% 9.1% 29.9% 9.6% 2.9% 3.8%
( Incl. Oklahoma)
FBOP 1000% 11.3% 29.2% 28.0% 25.9% 5.7%
National Total 100.0% 22.0% 13.3% 9.1% 31.0% 14.3% 4.9% 5.3%
Arizona 1000% 130% 20.8% 32.6% 31.3% 0.9% 1.4%
California 100.0% 4.0% 12.4% 23.5% 21.5% 17.4% 8.3% 12.8%
Connecticut 100.0% 28.2% 10.8% 25.0% 17.8% 17.5% 0.8%
Florida 1000% 58.7% 2.2% 19.8% 5.5% 13.8%
Indiana 100.0% 1.6% 1.8% 31.9% 53.6% 9.2% 1.9%
Nevada 100.0% 15.9% 59.3% 22.5% 2.3%
New York 100.0% 2.9% 28.5% 54.4% 11.0% 3.2%
Permsylvania 100.0% 20.6% 40.6% 26.3% 2.6% 9.8%
South Carolina 100.0% 56.6% 32.9% 8.8% 1.8%
Tennessee 100.0% 5.1% 13.5% 48.0% 15.9% 5.0% 12.6%
Vermont 100.0% 78.2% 21.8%
Washington 100.0% 61.8% 1.4% 6.1% 17.0% 13.8%
*Oklahoma+: Community Security+ EMP/SSP/PPCS
CORRECTIONAL AGENCY CAPACITIES by SECURITY LEVEL on January 1, 1994
Jurisdiction Total Beds Multi-level Maximum Close/High Medium Minimum Community Reception
Arizona 16,091 2,088 3,340 5,247 5,041 144 231
Arkansas 8,014 1,896 1,550 432 3,138 531 467
California 69,013 2,760 8,560 16,247 14,866 12,019 5,720 8,841
Colorado 7,880 282 504 336 4,602 1,732 424
Connecticut 12,133 3,416 1,306 3,031 2,158 2,122 100
FBOP 78,493 8,897 22,891 21,942 20,292 4,471
Florida 54,043 31,728 1,176 10,702 2,985 7,452
Indiana 12,255 200 224 3,905 6,566 1,129 231
Kansas 6,448 5,574 150 488 236
Missouri 15,911 6,164 2,566 2,600 2,195 983 445 958
Nevada 6,440 1,026 3,820 1,446 148
New Mexico 3,571 214 288 1,946 1,123
New York 61,761 1,763 2,898 33,606 6,813 1,962
Oklahoma 12,466 1,091 1,492 959 2,962 4,346 1,296 320
Pennsylvania 18,844 3,883 7,654 4,960 491 1,856
South Carolina 16,214 9,172 5,330 1,424 288
Tennessee 11,957 612 1,610 5,734 1,900 595 1,506
Texas 72,854 1,790 33,191 7,228 23,192 3,030 2,006 2,417
Vermont 785 614 171
Washington 7,996 4,938 108 487 1,361 1,102
Total 474,588 67,127 59,069 48,107 154,602 70,367 28,460 32,137
National Total 776,790 166,874 109,602 86,084 241,136 112,894 37,130 40,250
Regional Total 127,144 17,011 39,741 11,555 38,035 12,233 3,747 4,822
Oklahoma+ Total 14,838 1,091 1,492 959 2,962 4,346 3,668 320
*Oklahoma+( EMP/SSP/PPCS) total 1-1-94 = 2372 add to community
INITIAL SECURITY ASSIGNMENT
DOC# Name Race
RCP FAC CLS Date --/---/ - Transfer Reason ------------------------ Priority (NIT by POP office) Date recorded in POP office, _
Control Offense Code Controlling current release date, _
NUMBEROFCCCASES _
Sex RID l20JR _
SUM OF CS CASES, _
TOTAL CURRENT RELEASE DATE __ /__ /__
I. Offense Category
AB
.
C.
D.
Points
SECURITY
II. Sentence Length
AB
.
C.
D.
E.
Points
Ill. Prior Convictions
2 or more (Category A or B)
o
Points
IV. Escape History
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
Points
V. Conduct Points
TOTAL SCORE
Assessed Security Level: Max. Med. Min. Comm.Serv. Comm.Res.
ADDmONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
Separatee __ Suicidal Under Investigation __ Priority Needs __
Pending Felony Charges, Warrants, or Detainers __ Medical/Communicable Disease
Aggressive/Assaultive __ Date(s) _/ _/ _ What Occurred? _
Assigned Security Grade: Max. _ Med. Min. Comm.Serv. Comm.Res. ---
Inmate Signature _ Assessment Performed by _
Classification Committee Additional Comments _
I:\DOCFORMS\060211EWPD DOC 060211E (0195)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITY ASSIGNMENT FORM
Attachment A
~ecommending Facility: If priority,
Population Off~ce Pers. In~t~als
Number: ~- Date of Recommendation ---l~ _ Date Received By
Population Office: _1_1_
Inmate's Last Name: ___________________ First: _ Sex:
1. REASoN E'OR TRANSE'ER (Mark Appropr~ate Items):
Initial Placement
___ Security Adjustment
Medical Treatment
___ Program Need
___Disciplinary Unit:Number of Days
___Law Library Usage DU Commenced
___ Parole Board Stipulation
___Mediation Hearing
Transit Detention
Protective measures
Other:
___ Service Agency
House Arrest
___ Pre-Hearing Detention
____R_e_t_u_r_n__t_o__F_a_cil~i-t-y~DAUfter:
____________ ~Law Library Usage
___Misconduct Expungement
LARC Re-Evaluation
PPCS
Race:----
Current Assign Security
After Completion of
SASS
Max
MED
.MIN
COM Work Center
COM RES
PPCS
11 . BRIEl" DESCRIPTION Of'REASoN E'oR TRANSE'ER:
III. RECOMMENDED TRANSFER:
P21rnsodtgrPParrmiioorrniietteyyd. Area (Code of Program) __ Geographic Area ~ _
Iv. E'ccACTION: Geographic Area----------------------------
CIhnamiartpeCe'orsnscouSnri::g~n~aY~eNtso~u~r~e~I:f~C-Nh-oa-,n-g-eR-e-at-so-o:-n-:--------------
Routine--------~~~~~~=-~==~~~~-----
CCaorserecMtainoangaelr: C·~o~u~n~s~e~l~o~r~:~-----------------
Date: ~~_
Date: ~~_
Facility Head ReCvaiseew:M-a-n"a'g!e:rE'Sru:p:ear~vc~:s"o'r:~..,l-.:~"'!;t~y;"""'!Hr.:e::-:a::-:d:r""'!R,-:e::-:v:-:"~::-:e::-:w-:--
(PopuLATION oE'F'lcEACTION)
Date of Assignment: I I
Waiting List: Yes--- ~ --
Date pf Transfer: ---'== I__
-~A-ns-hsAaiCdngocmnneimcneuinrsttwriTRatretheaiasvtoeRmnee:cnoAtmdmjeuOnsbdtjametecintotinve(i.e.,
~tsaipcoahncOi,etehvereeretdcu.c)ebetotveerrcrroawcdiianlg,disbterdi-bu_-
TEeCoInncmuarte is-AsDsoigNnoetd Cotnoc:u-r---
s~gnature of Populat~on Coord~nator
FoforwFaarcdielditytoClCaososr.dinDaattoer ~~ __
Denied ~C~oo~r~d~~~n~a~t~o~r~~~of~~l"ac~l~ty class
Reason:
162040/FORMS/FORMSIGN DOC 062040 (0590)
Page 1 of 2
DEPAR'I'HEHT OF CORRECI'IONS REO.ASSIFICATIOM SECIIRI1Y ASSESSHFJn'
~ / / Facility Code Type of Action Scheduled Reclass Unscheduled Reclass
t NaiDe- - Firsr-"7 DOCNumber eM ID
rerrt Se-cu-r-l...,t""y"....,.r:e..".v~e~lr-:s~:-HHlDall'IaW::lI-:x~llDUICIOl~liD=iI-. Servo Comm.Res. HA/PPCS ---------
tIRE LEP'i' 1'0 MOVE: The Inmate is
'ontro.l l ing CRD (days)
f es cases -raays) Total CRD (Days) 1/3 Total Time Date / .
v'hoose the alternative which descriO'eSThe inmate's current sentencef -- ---
lRITYPOINTS
l3 a. Has death sentence.
9 b. Has time left to serve for a violent offense which is greater than 5,479 days, or
Has time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is greater than 7305 days:-
3 c. Has time left to serve for a violent offense which is less than or equal to 5479 days, or
Has time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is less than or equal to 7305 days, or
Has served 1/3 of total term of incarceration of l6t436 days. -
1 d. Has time left to serve for a violent offense which 1S less than or equal to 2922 days, or
Has time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is less than or equal to ~3 days and meets
prisoner public works eligibility criteria and has no security conduct points, o e. Has a total time left to serve for a violent offense which is less than an or equal to 1461 days, or
Has a total time left to serve for a nonviolent offense which is less than or equal to 2192 days, Or
Has less than 660 days (22 months) on sex offense or drug distribution/trafficking conviction or 15 within
ISO days of PPCSeligibility date and meets the time criteria specified above.
roNOOC'l': The inmate's conduct record indicates that the inmate has been found guiity of one or more offenses.
Do not count offenses for escapes or attempts for which escape points have been assessed, or offenses which e lso
resulted in a felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction.
PTS. OFFENSE PTS.
a. OVer 15
b. 14-15
c. 10-13
d. 8-9
e. 6-7
f. 3-5
g. 0-2
OFFENSPEOINTSDEFINITION CODE CLASS--D-A-TE-An
offense conviction for dot (01-4) assault on staff (04-8), /__ / __
killing another person (04-1), or seizing another person or
persons (04-7) during this incarceration or within ten years
of prior incarceration equals 16 offense points.
A conviction of a violent felony committed while incar~erated
in last 2 years (from date of conviction) equals 14 offense
points. A serious Class A offense conviction during last
year: 01-1, 01-2, 01-3, 02-9, 04-2, '04-4, 04-5, 04-6,
04-9, 08-3, 09-1,
09-2 (if firearm or amunition), 09-7, or 16-2 equals 12
offense points.
A conviction of 04-3 equals 8 offense points for six months.
A Class A offense other than those listed above within last 6
months equals 4 offense points. Conviction of a nonviolent
felony while incarcerated in last 2 years equals 6 offense
points for 2 years. A Class B offense within last 6 IIOIlths
equals 2 offense points. A Class C offense within last 60
days equals 1 offense point. Conviction of a ai.sdeseanor
committed while incarcerated within last 6 months equals 3
offense points.
.- - ,- _/_/ ~".
---_/_'/-
---_/_/_.
-- -- -- --/--/---
---_/_/_ ..,
---_/_/-
---_/_/_~ .•.
a. Inmate has not made an effort to enroll or has not satisfactorily participated in assigned programs within
the last 120 days. Not to be used to iDcrease security level by lIinimumsecurity or above.
For following, must serve 15%of sentence non-violent or 20%violent. To be used by mediumand maximum
security only.
: b. Inmate has been assigned to earned credit levelland has maintained this level for 12 consecutive months.
c. Inmate has maintained class level 4 for 12 consecutive months.
None of the above
ESCAPE BISTC:ItY: The inmate has absconded, escaped, or attempted escape (select most serious):
From maximum/mediumsecurity status during this incarceration or within 10 yrs. from former incarceration.
Escape date: / / Apprehension date: / /
, b. Twoor more ~pes from minimumCTC,esc, PPCS, PECC,ora combination "Within the last ten years.
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ /__ /__
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ /__ / __
3 c. From minimumsecurity within the last five years.
Escape date: __ /__ / __ Apprehension date: __ / __ /__
l"'age .:. OJ .;
ility Last Name DOC Numbe.r Date _/ __ / __
4 d. From community security (ere, ese, PECC) within the
Escape date: __ / __ 7__ APPrehension date:
From PPCS or HA within the last two years.
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ / __ / __
Absconded from probation, parole, was A'WOLotr forfeited bond within
Escape date: __ / __ / __ Apprehension date: __ /__ / __
None of the above.
last three years.
--/--/-- 2 e.
1 f. last 1 year. .: -"'_.
o g.
ALSCORE Assessed security Level: Max. Med.
13+
Min.
8-12
Comm.Serv. COfllI. Res .
2-7 1 o
ADDITIORAL SEaJRI'IY OlNSIDl!RATIOfiS (Cbeclt All 1bat Apply)
Interstate 'Warrant/Detainer Priority Needs _
Out of state 'Warrant/Detainer Other _
Pending Felony Litigation _
Unofficial Notice of Detainer Escape Grandfathered ---------
Age
aratee
ressive/Assaultive
cidal
er Investigation
ical override due to
BUnicable disease
lanation:
Kaodatory Override (